G.R. No. L-23307 June 30, 1967
DAMASO P. PEREZ and REPUBLIC BANK, ETC., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. MONETARY BOARD, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS, CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, respondents-appellees. AURORA R. RECTO, MIGUEL CANIZARES, LEON ANCHETA, PABLO ROMAN, VICTORIA B. ROMAN and NORBERTO J. QUISUMBING, intervenors-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Damaso P. Perez, for himself and in a derivative capacity for the Republic Bank, filed a mandamus petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila on June 23, 1962. The petition sought to compel the Monetary Board, the Superintendent of Banks, the Central Bank, and the Secretary of Justice to prosecute Pablo Roman and other Republic Bank officials for alleged violations of the General Banking Act and the Central Bank Act, and for falsification of public/commercial documents in connection with anomalous loans totaling P1,303,400.00. Respondents contested the propriety of mandamus, with the Secretary of Justice arguing it was not their specific duty to prosecute, and the Central Bank officials asserting they had already fulfilled their duty by referring the cases to the Department of Justice’s special prosecutors for criminal investigation. The lower court initially denied a motion to dismiss. Subsequently, incumbent directors of the Republic Bank intervened. Later, the Monetary Board passed Resolution No. 81, granting credit accommodations to the Republic Bank conditioned on the execution of a voting trust agreement by its controlling stockholders (the Roman family), effectively ousting them from management. This agreement was later superseded by one with the Philippine National Bank as trustee. Based on these developments, the intervenors and respondents filed motions to dismiss, arguing the case was moot and academic and that mandamus was improper. The lower court granted the motions and dismissed the case, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the remedy of mandamus is proper to compel the respondents to prosecute criminally the alleged violators of banking laws.

RULING

No, the remedy of mandamus is improper. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Central Bank and its officials, while having a duty under the law to cause the prosecution of violators, have no clear, specific duty to conduct the actual prosecution themselves. The Central Bank is a monetary and banking administration agency, not a prosecution agency. Its power to sue and be sued refers to civil cases, not criminal prosecution. The Court found that the Central Bank had already done all it could within its powers by referring the cases to the special prosecutors of the Department of Justice. To compel them to prosecute would be an ultra vires act. As for the Secretary of Justice, while having prosecutorial power, it is a settled rule that mandamus will not lie to compel a prosecuting officer to prosecute a criminal case. Furthermore, violations of banking laws constitute public offenses that anyone, including private individuals like Perez, can denounce before prosecuting authorities. Therefore, Perez had a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, making mandamus improper. The Court also rejected the argument that the lower court was estopped from reconsidering its prior interlocutory order denying the motion to dismiss on the same ground.